BACKGROUND: The role of autologous fat transfer (AFT) for cosmetic breast augmentation is uncertain due to ongoing concerns regarding its safety and efficacy compared with other breast augmentation techniques. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review was to assess the safety and efficacy of AFT for cosmetic breast augmentation in comparison with saline and cohesive silicone gel implants. METHODS: A systematic search of several electronic databases, including PubMed and EMBASE, was used to identify relevant studies for inclusion. The inclusion of studies was established through the application of a predetermined protocol by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: There were no comparative studies available, necessitating that all comparisons be indirect. Eighteen studies were included, 11 of which reported outcomes for AFT. Complications associated with AFT occurred in only a small proportion of patients, with fat necrosis, cysts and lumps most commonly reported. No data examining the effect of complications such as microcalcification on long-term mammographic and cancer-related outcomes were identified. Reabsorption of fat occurred to varying degrees, usually during the first 12 months following the procedure. Patient satisfaction following AFT was high. Limitation in breast volume increase was the main complaint associated with this procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the limited evidence available, AFT was considered to be at least as safe as the nominated comparator procedures in regard to complications; however, its safety in regard to cancer detection could not be determined. The efficacy of AFT could not be determined.
BACKGROUND: The role of autologous fat transfer (AFT) for cosmetic breast augmentation is uncertain due to ongoing concerns regarding its safety and efficacy compared with other breast augmentation techniques. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review was to assess the safety and efficacy of AFT for cosmetic breast augmentation in comparison with saline and cohesive silicone gel implants. METHODS: A systematic search of several electronic databases, including PubMed and EMBASE, was used to identify relevant studies for inclusion. The inclusion of studies was established through the application of a predetermined protocol by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: There were no comparative studies available, necessitating that all comparisons be indirect. Eighteen studies were included, 11 of which reported outcomes for AFT. Complications associated with AFT occurred in only a small proportion of patients, with fat necrosis, cysts and lumps most commonly reported. No data examining the effect of complications such as microcalcification on long-term mammographic and cancer-related outcomes were identified. Reabsorption of fat occurred to varying degrees, usually during the first 12 months following the procedure. Patient satisfaction following AFT was high. Limitation in breast volume increase was the main complaint associated with this procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the limited evidence available, AFT was considered to be at least as safe as the nominated comparator procedures in regard to complications; however, its safety in regard to cancer detection could not be determined. The efficacy of AFT could not be determined.
Authors: Allen Gabriel; G Patrick Maxwell; Leah Griffin; Manish C Champaneria; Mousam Parekh; David Macarios Journal: Aesthet Surg J Date: 2016-10-11 Impact factor: 4.283
Authors: Scott L Spear; Courtney N Coles; Braden K Leung; Matthew Gitlin; Mousam Parekh; David Macarios Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2016-08-08